Our house wine is Cline's cali zin. About 8 US. , and also some other
cheapies. So I picked up Napa Ridge Cali Zin at US 6.00. Dark cherry and
some blueberry. Almost no oak. Lots of cocoa. No aging, just drink and
enjoy. We do have a little cellar, but we drink too much.


Rich R.
--
The journey is the reward.

In article > ,
Rich R > wrote:
>
>Our house wine is Cline's cali zin. About 8 US. , and also some other
>cheapies. So I picked up Napa Ridge Cali Zin at US 6.00. Dark cherry and
>some blueberry. Almost no oak. Lots of cocoa. No aging, just drink and
>enjoy. We do have a little cellar, but we drink too much.


I do not like the Cline Zin, although many people do. For a cheap zin I
like Ravenswood Sonoma County (not Vintner's Blend).


Dimitri

Rich R wrote:

> Our house wine is Cline's cali zin. About 8 US. , and also some other
> cheapies. So I picked up Napa Ridge Cali Zin at US 6.00. Dark cherry and
> some blueberry. Almost no oak. Lots of cocoa. No aging, just drink and
> enjoy. We do have a little cellar, but we drink too much.

Napa Ridge. Nothing to do with Napa. Heh-heh.

Dana

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 01:09:16 +0000 (UTC),
(D. Gerasimatos) wrote:

>I do not like the Cline Zin, although many people do. For a cheap zin I
>like Ravenswood Sonoma County (not Vintner's Blend).

But it's the Blend that competes with the cheapo Cline. For my money
the Cline has been much better the past 3 years or so.

The Ravenswood Sonoma County is in a higher price bracket. In that
price range I'm thinking the basic Renwood might also be a good
choice, but my memory may be failing me here WRT the price point.

-- Robert

In article >, Robert Stevahn
> writes:

>n Tue, 28 Oct 2003 01:09:16 +0000 (UTC),
>(D. Gerasimatos) wrote:
>
>>I do not like the Cline Zin, although many people do. For a cheap zin I
>>like Ravenswood Sonoma County (not Vintner's Blend).
>
>But it's the Blend that competes with the cheapo Cline. For my money
>the Cline has been much better the past 3 years or so.
>
>

I've found the Cline CA zin to be surprisingly vintage-dependent (surprising
just as in lower end general appelation wines tend to be less vintage variable
than say single vineyard stuff). I really liked the '98, loved the '99 (the
best under $10 zin I've had in last 5 years), found the '00 drinkable but not
worth buying, with the 2001 back to liked.

A lot of (knowledgable) people disagreed with me re the 2000. It had a heavy
feel (with an almost portish nose) that appealed a lot to some, but not to me.


Dale

Dale Williams
Drop "damnspam" to reply

On 28 Oct 2003 15:53:15 GMT, amnspam (Dale Williams)
wrote:

>I've found the Cline CA zin to be surprisingly vintage-dependent

I've found that to be true of the Ravenswood Vintner's Blend, too, but
I don't know how much of that is the wine and how much is my sense of
what I like over time. Honestly, I used to buy lots of sub-US$10 Zins,
now I rarely do.

-- Robert

Dale Williams wrote:

> I've found the Cline CA zin to be surprisingly vintage-dependent (surprising
> just as in lower end general appelation wines tend to be less vintage variable
> than say single vineyard stuff). I really liked the '98, loved the '99 (the
> best under $10 zin I've had in last 5 years), found the '00 drinkable but not
> worth buying, with the 2001 back to liked.

Dale,
I'm with you on this: some years I love the Cline CA Zin, others I find it
boring. The same for the Ravenswood Vintners Blend, with the '01 the best I've
yet tried. At this price point, people should also check out the Rosenblum
Vintners Cuvee XXV, which is quite a nice wine for the price.

Mark Lipton

In article >,
Robert Stevahn > wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 01:09:16 +0000 (UTC),
>(D. Gerasimatos) wrote:
>
>>I do not like the Cline Zin, although many people do. For a cheap zin I
>>like Ravenswood Sonoma County (not Vintner's Blend).
>
>But it's the Blend that competes with the cheapo Cline. For my money
>the Cline has been much better the past 3 years or so.
>
>The Ravenswood Sonoma County is in a higher price bracket. In that
>price range I'm thinking the basic Renwood might also be a good
>choice, but my memory may be failing me here WRT the price point.


The price difference is about $2-3.


Dimitri

D. Gerasimatos wrote:
>>
>> Our house wine is Cline's cali zin. About 8 US. , and also some other
>> cheapies. So I picked up Napa Ridge Cali Zin at US 6.00. Dark cherry
>> and some blueberry. Almost no oak. Lots of cocoa. No aging, just
>> drink and enjoy. We do have a little cellar, but we drink too much.
>
>
> I do not like the Cline Zin, although many people do. For a cheap zin
> I like Ravenswood Sonoma County (not Vintner's Blend).
>
>
> Dimitri

Hey Dimitri my Pac-10 brother,

The Sonoma Ravenswood is better but in a slightly higher price range than
the Cline as was pointed out. But if you get it as Costco the Ravenswood is
only about $12 instead of the $16 or so in the grocery. Well worth the ~$3
price jump if you're a Costco member.

GS

"Mark Lipton" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Dale Williams wrote:
>
> > I've found the Cline CA zin to be surprisingly vintage-dependent
(surprising
> > just as in lower end general appelation wines tend to be less vintage
variable
> > than say single vineyard stuff). I really liked the '98, loved the '99
(the
> > best under $10 zin I've had in last 5 years), found the '00 drinkable
but not
> > worth buying, with the 2001 back to liked.
>
> Dale,
> I'm with you on this: some years I love the Cline CA Zin, others I find
it
> boring. The same for the Ravenswood Vintners Blend, with the '01 the
best I've
> yet tried. At this price point, people should also check out the
Rosenblum
> Vintners Cuvee XXV, which is quite a nice wine for the price.
>
> Mark Lipton


Well I never said "exciting". But for QPR I would put up the Napa Ridge with
the Vitners Blend. I am a cheap skate when it comes to everyday whites and
reds.

Rich R.

"Dana Myers" > wrote in message news:3f9dd32d$1@wobble...
> Rich R wrote:
>
> > Our house wine is Cline's cali zin. About 8 US. , and also some other
> > cheapies. So I picked up Napa Ridge Cali Zin at US 6.00. Dark cherry and
> > some blueberry. Almost no oak. Lots of cocoa. No aging, just drink and
> > enjoy. We do have a little cellar, but we drink too much.
>
> Napa Ridge. Nothing to do with Napa. Heh-heh.
>
> Dana

Hi Dana,

Duh?

Rich R.

Rich R wrote:
> "Dana Myers" > wrote in message news:3f9dd32d$1@wobble...

>>Napa Ridge. Nothing to do with Napa. Heh-heh.

The label was sold to The Wine Group, the same folks that
bottle Charles Shaw. There's no telling what's in the bottle.
Napa Ridge is one of the irksome labels that the 'real' Napa
wineries would like to restrict.

Doesn't mean the wine isn't good; some of it might be.

Dana

Dana Myers > wrote in :

>
> The label was sold to The Wine Group, the same folks that
> bottle Charles Shaw. There's no telling what's in the bottle.
> Napa Ridge is one of the irksome labels that the 'real' Napa
> wineries would like to restrict.
>
> Doesn't mean the wine isn't good; some of it might be.
>
> Dana
>

Sorry to de-lurk, but didn't you say earlier something like

> ...(Consumers that give a sh*t understand the difference
> between "champagne" from California and Champagne.) Other
> consumers don't matter (they don't care... they just don't
> know the difference and don't care anyway).
>

and
>....I believe the practice is easily as much about attempting
to communicate with consumers in terms they know...
>

I expect those same consumers don't care about what is in the bottle of
"Napa" Ridge...<tweak> ;D

<engage lurk mode>
d

abcdvitamin wrote:

> Dana Myers > wrote in :
>
>
>>The label was sold to The Wine Group, the same folks that
>>bottle Charles Shaw. There's no telling what's in the bottle.
>>Napa Ridge is one of the irksome labels that the 'real' Napa
>>wineries would like to restrict.
>>
>>Doesn't mean the wine isn't good; some of it might be.
>>
>>Dana
>>
>
>
> Sorry to de-lurk, but didn't you say earlier something like
>
>
>>...(Consumers that give a sh*t understand the difference
>>between "champagne" from California and Champagne.) Other
>>consumers don't matter (they don't care... they just don't
>>know the difference and don't care anyway).
>>
>
>
> and
>
>>....I believe the practice is easily as much about attempting
>
> to communicate with consumers in terms they know...
>
>
> I expect those same consumers don't care about what is in the bottle of
> "Napa" Ridge...<tweak> ;D

Yup. Did I write something inconsistent?

Dana